Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Please don't take this as criticism. The last few portraits and the flowers seem to have no detail in the shadows on my monitor. Could be my monitor. Do you all have detail on the neg? For instance in Voom, which is a very creative shot, Sergei, there is no detail in the hair. Had you given a couple of stops more would you get detail? Would you blow highlights?
Sergei, I think you have gotten the best sharpness out of this xray film. You still find it not as sharp as photo emulsions?
Thanks and congrats on the good work, all.
Mark
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
You can't tell apparent detail/sharpness from these tiny forum images.
I did some experiments recently with unstripped x-ray film. It is clearly softer with both emulsions, if that matters to anyone. A scan of each showed a pretty apparent difference.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark MacKenzie
Please don't take this as criticism. The last few portraits and the flowers seem to have no detail in the shadows on my monitor. Could be my monitor. Do you all have detail on the neg? For instance in Voom, which is a very creative shot, Sergei, there is no detail in the hair. Had you given a couple of stops more would you get detail? Would you blow highlights?
Sergei, I think you have gotten the best sharpness out of this xray film. You still find it not as sharp as photo emulsions?
Thanks and congrats on the good work, all.
Mark
Mark, i do follow Mortensen's school on the shadows - there is no point in having details there, unless something is lit. However - there is enough details there, i just pull that leg on curve a bit, as i prepare it for web. Sharpness wise.. I dont know. Way how i see it - its about as sharp as Arista, at least on scans i am getting. If i close f to 16/22 i have no issues with seeing every hair or every eyelash and bits of blood vessels in eyes.. However it might be a problem for people who need really really sharp bits in shots , like for non-pictorial landscapes & etc.
I will try to show unprocessed crop :)
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
There you go.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8094/8...002a5ae2_c.jpg
c1 by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
8x10 CDG, Symmar 300mm, no filter, 7m in Rodinal 1+50 (i NEED to try 1+100)
IMHO - fairly sharp, i dont think i ever got anything better with same lens on 8x10 with same scanner.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
8x10 kodak cdg, yellow-green keno (xo) filter. Overcast. Gundlach radar 8x10. Straight scan.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8...6d018ab0_c.jpg
Masha by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark MacKenzie
Please don't take this as criticism. The last few portraits and the flowers seem to have no detail in the shadows on my monitor. Could be my monitor. Do you all have detail on the neg? For instance in Voom, which is a very creative shot, Sergei, there is no detail in the hair. Had you given a couple of stops more would you get detail? Would you blow highlights?
Sergei, I think you have gotten the best sharpness out of this xray film. You still find it not as sharp as photo emulsions?
Thanks and congrats on the good work, all.
Mark
Mark, if you're referring to my portraits, I was going for a high contrast, single light source portrait- look. I'm a fan of the "Meet the Beatles" album cover look, though they are 1/2 moon type look and mine are more of a 3/4 moon look.
I also mentioned that these were test exposures. IMR, IMR +1, IMR +2, and IMR +3 (trying to figure out how much bellows extension I have to factor into exposure.
IMR +3 had crazy detail. I could see detailed reflection in the eyes, which is not very natural when looking into dark Asian eyes. Because of the extra exposure, the lighting becomes very flat and looses the mood I'm looking for in my contact prints. I didn't upload IMR +3.
IMR +2 renders more naturally what I saw with my eyes in the studio. There's enough detail in the shadows and hair. The image is so flat from using Rodinal 1:100, that I had to use a #5 filter to bring any contrast into the image. I uploaded this image here.
IMR +1 got messed up in the developer. I was trying to figure Dektol out. Since I determined that IMR +2 was the best exposure IMR +1 and IMR were already as good as trash to me. I just though "what the heck, let's put in Dektol and see what we get".
IMR gives incredible sharpness in Dektol. It makes the Rodinal look soft. Yes they are 3 stops underexposed, so ther is no detail in the shadows. But I love the looks I get with Dektol 1:2. The times are just so short it's scary. 1-2 min.
I've decided that since I'm going to be making around 100 of these type portraits, I'm going to continue with developer tests. I'll probably ask male and female students today.
Rodinal 1:100 is too flat for this work so I'm going to try Rodinal 1:25 and 1:50.
I've got some XTOL, might as well soup it up too. Might as well try Xtodinal again too.
I can also try Dektol 1:3, 1:4, and 1:5.
And I haven't tried Diafine yet.
That's 8 tests. But we'll worth it to figure out which look I want. Plus now I know, IMR + 3 is too extreme and IMR lacks the shadow detail. I'll just do IMR +2.
By the way, critiques and heavy criticism are welcome! If I didn't want criticism I wouldn't upload my tests here.
Lee
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SergeiR
Someone should upload a test with different filters. I'm curious how they each see. Beautiful portrait again!
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Hi Lee and Sergei,
Not trying to be critical; I am wondering about the response of the film. I do like the Meet the Beatles look, good work. Hats off to you both and Corran and all you guys. I have a box of the Fuji HR-T but only developed two sheets so far. I am wondering about Diafine with this film but it has been so grey in Tennessee that the sun hardly comes out. Both of your portraits show great detail. Anyway, thanks to all sharing their findings.
That portrait of Marsha is cool. Love the tree limbs' focus at the top. I assume this is Rodinal also?
Thanks,
Mark
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Mark, with any film and with x-ray film I can get the detail I need if I expose and develop it properly. If you are asking can you get all the detail in the print especially in the shadows then I can say speaking only for myself, yes. I have detail in the shadows that you can not see on anything I post on the web. YOu must see the carbon print and hold it in the light and you will understand that with x-ray film one can achieve similar results to traditional film. Now I don't worry about working for a scan because I'm all about the final print.
This is why I like to see posts of the final presentation and not negative scans. However you post it here please complete the story and tell if it is a print please. Thanks.
Re: Images shot on X-ray film
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mark MacKenzie
Hi Lee and Sergei,
Not trying to be critical; I am wondering about the response of the film. I do like the Meet the Beatles look, good work. Hats off to you both and Corran and all you guys. I have a box of the Fuji HR-T but only developed two sheets so far. I am wondering about Diafine with this film but it has been so grey in Tennessee that the sun hardly comes out. Both of your portraits show great detail. Anyway, thanks to all sharing their findings.
That portrait of Marsha is cool. Love the tree limbs' focus at the top. I assume this is Rodinal also?
Thanks,
Mark
Please do be critical! I can take a beating!
